On Sunday, February 22, a public affairs program on WNJN had a discussion of the homosexual marriage issue featuring media commentators Evan Thomas, Nina Totenberg, Colbert King (a black columnist with the Washington Post), and Charles Krauthammer. Thomas said it’s happening, it’s inevitable. Totenberg said that the slippery slope argument that homosexual marriage would lead to polygamy is not valid because polygamy is not about equality, but about the subjection of women. King said homosexual marriage is like the civil rights movement, delay is not acceptable, and only bigots would try to delay it.

And Krauthammer, the token “conservative” on the panel?
Well, he said that this is a big change in society and it should not be rushed, and he said that people who want to delay and discuss such a major change in society are not bigots. But he also said (I’m paraphrasing):

After seeing the lineup of people seeking to get married in San Francisco, I think the burden is on those who say that gay marriage should be denied.

Two days earlier, on Friday, February 20, a caller told “conservative” radio host Sean Hannity how upset he was about the illegal homosexual marriages that were being performed in California, with no one standing up against it, with no leadership on the issue, and so on.

Hannity replied:

I’m against gay marriage, but it’s not the most important thing, compared to the war on terrorism.

Good old Sean, right in line with David “The War on Terror Is All There Is” Horowitz and John “The Culture War Is Dead and It’s a Good Thing” Podhoretz.

Lawrence,
This is interesting but not surprising. Krauthammer, Hannity et al have essentially become rolling infomercials for Karl Rove’s GOP establishment. Hannity in particular is an increasingly pathetic, servile creature. Like his role model, R Limbaugh, he spends his radio show alternately attacking the Democrats or shilling for Bush. He cannot think independently and despite his protestations to the contrary, is acutely sensitive to the opinion of the liberal elite.
Most of the bogus “conservatives” like Hannity & Limbaugh try to build a cult of personality around themselves rather than appealing to principles. The last time I listened to either of these guys, it was like being at a pep rally for a college football game; just mindless boosterism for their team, the GOP.
Beyond tax cuts & high defence spending, Hannity et al have nothing to say to conservatives.

Posted by: Chris M. on February 22, 2004 9:10 PM

I haven’t listened to Talk radio in a few years, and I haven’t listened to Hannity for longer than that. He’s not a bad guy, but I’ve always thought he was nearly worthless as a conservative commentator, and I can’t stand his on-air voice and persona. I heard about this from a friend, and was passing it on. It’s the sentiment which is now almost become classic: Nothing matters, only the war on terror matters. So if a leftist government took over America and threatened to appropriate all private property, Hannity would say, “I’m opposed to Communism, but the war on terror is a bigger problem.” Anyone who could say such a stupid thing does not deserve to be in public life.

He’s a very average guy, with no talent or particular brains. The last time I listened to him, for 30 minutes during a car trip a few months ago, he must have repeated himself 15 times. It was torture listening to him. I once heard him as the luncheon speaker at a conference of conservative lawmakers, with maybe a thousand people present. There was nothing there, just boosterism.

Rush at least has some genuine talent. But I am at a loss to understand why Sean is such a big star.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on February 22, 2004 9:38 PM

If mainstream movement-type conservatives and republicans are going to concede issues such as sodomite marriage, that black parody of a travesty of a farce masquerading as a two-in-one-flesh-union, then true conservatives ought to “get it over with”. Either set about building an alternative political party, or renounce even the belief that serious political and social reform is achievable in this country. Accept the reality that we are increasingly offered a choice, not between the stupid party and the evil party, but between the evil party and the evil-but-not-quite-so-fast party; and with this reality ever before our minds, opt out, stay home, withdraw allegiances and let it die. If the elites are intent upon forcing such abominations upon the public, and the public eventually are going to acquiesce, as they have on virtually every other abomination visited upon us by liberalism and the robed masters, then just let the infamous, wretched thing that our culture and nation will have become, die. Await the inevitable by laying the foundation for the civilization that may replace the one which is now choking on its’ own excess and nihilism.

Posted by: Jeff M on February 22, 2004 9:52 PM

Krauthammer was a speechwriter for Walter Mondale during the 1980 election. I saw Krauthammer on a CSPAN show about 15 years ago discussing the lack of conservative Democrats. Mr. Krauthammer said he broke with the Democratic party over foreign policy. Clearly, he has kept his liberalism on most everything. A few years ago, he said he didn’t mind slavery reparations if it was a one-time payoff. It wouldn’t be, of course. Krauthammer is a proponent of unlimited immigration as well. Why wouldn’t he agree to the homosexual agenda?

Posted by: David on February 22, 2004 10:07 PM

No truly sensible person can dismiss what Jeff has said. It speaks to a realization deep within, a feeling we perhaps suppress because we’re afraid of where it would lead us. Are we supposed to care about a society where we have to “debate” homosexual marriage, a society where lots and lots of the most “respectable” people find nothing particularly wrong with it? A friend who saw the program where Krauthammer said that told me that she just began laughing. How are we supposed to take this seriously any more?

But what form would this withdrawal take? To take one small example, do we stop following and debating current events? Is it possible to ignore one’s own society? Frankly, I’ve taken that position before, of “separating spiritually” from America, but I’ve found it impossible to sustain. One is living in the world, and naturally keeps responding to what’s going on in it. Withdrawal become especially hard when something like 9/11 happens.

Perhaps we need the courage to be like Jeremiah, truly to dissociate ourselves from our present society, because it is hopelessly corrupt; not to worry about defending it any more, but taking the view that the society deserves God’s chastisement.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on February 22, 2004 10:12 PM

Jeff M. and Mr. Auster bring up a most serenely sad point, and it is one that I think about, too. The country has gone so ridiculously far to the left and it is at the same time becoming a Third World country (by the uneducated, unassimilating hordes from Asian and from Mexico and points south) that there is simply nothing we can do but watch it go down. The left has the courts at every level, the universities, the high schools and just about everything else. We are in a minority, although there are a lot of us out there who are simply too afraid to speak up and change the country.

I have found myself this past year (as the brazen left continued to rear its ugly head in so many areas of our culture and politics) watching John Wayne and Clark Gable movies—“real” men, icons, revered, with faults but truly great men, leaders. I feel I need an infusion of “real men” in my world, because there are so few of them. I tried to think of one person in Congress or in the Administration that comes close to those two “kings”, and I could only come up with Tom Tancredo and Rumsfeld, and Tancredo is said to not have charisma. THAT is sad!! I think some of us are looking for a “real man” to stand up and lead us. That “man” has not appeared, and that concerns me. They are either too old and sick (Heston) or have some baggage that would destoy their chances. The only conservative WOMEN who might be considered “leaders”—with the exception of the elderly-but-wonderful Phyllis Schlafly—are too immersed in selling their books and/or doing their talk shows, and to be frank, precious few of them are traditional conservatives.

Posted by: David Levin on February 23, 2004 1:02 AM

In the very short time that I have been participating in the discussions on this website I have wondered about the futility of Christian conservatism as a political option. Jeff’s comment and Mr. Auster’s response touch upon the core issue. Is it reasonable to believe that the culture will turn around? Are there any realistic signs of a movement towards an authentic Christian social order and a rejection of profane consumerism (with all of its attendant perversions)? The political and economic systems of the West underlie the materialism which fuels the social deterioration we are now seeing. The financial and political powers behind it are vast and deeply entrenched. And, I might add, the elite establishment believes that it will profit from the dissolution of national sovereignty and Christian morality. I thus fail to see how anything short of either a revolution, or an apocalyptic event will bring about a genuine turnaround.

But should we be surprised that the US, and the West in general, are in a morbid state of decline? I find that a lot of conservative thinkers posit a romanticized version of America’s ideological origins against which the present is judged. The American republic was predicated on a Christianity transformed by liberal rationalism (informed by the philosophy John Locke). This nation was not built on traditional Christianity, but in part on a bastardized Calvinism that extolled work and wealth accumulation as ends-in-themselves. This is not a remarkable fact given that many of the founders were Freemasons and deists who were influenced by Machiavellian republicanism. Some Scholars have suggested that the roots of cultural decay and tyranny were inherent in the nature of the polity because the founders postulated a false concept of individualism. They rejected the notion of an objective summum bonum relative to which the social order must be oriented and instead maintained a private concept of the good as the individualistic pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the tendency towards fragmentation, secularization and centralization of power were present since the beginning.

Mr. Auster explains some of these points in his excellent essay, posted on this site, “THE POLITICAL RELIGION OF MODERNITY: Or, from Corpus Christi to the Macarena.”

Posted by: Manny Alvarez on February 23, 2004 2:31 AM

The sobering truth of the post by Jeff M., and its echo in the posts of Mssrs. Auster and Levin raise the issue of how are we, as the remnant of the traditional Western, Judeo-Christian culture that is in the process of being displaced as In write this, to respond. My position is that we must continue to speak the truth to anyone who has been given the ears to hear and the eyes to see. Like Solshenitzin and others in the Soviet Union, we are dissdents in the face of an overwhelming power.

The entire travesty of what has happened in San Francisco and the response of various Government officials to this brazen lawless defiance has been very illuminating. Despite Republican control of the Congress, Presidency, Governorships, and a substantial number of state legislatures, it appears thar the ruling oligarchy has made up its mind on this issue, much as they have with open borders. There is a very high probability that homosexual marriage will be legally enshrined within a year. Even more illuminating has been the response from the general public. They’re not happy with the situation but evidently not angry enough to really do anything about it - like voting against the sellouts. It would appear there is nothing that can wake the legions of white, suburban voters in this nation from the deep stupor of mindless depraved “entertainment.” Thanks to the degenerate popular culture that so many have embraced in their own lives, they have been rendered incapable of making moral judgements in the voting booth.

I’m afraid the only thing we can do is document what has happened and fight on to survive as dissidents here in the hope that a day of great repentance will dawn. It appears that the West is indeed on the precipice of a new dark age. Let us remember and emulate those of that earlier age so long ago in the preservation of our faith, nations, and culture. As has been mentioned on this forum before, liberalism cannot live on its own. It is a parasite that lives only in the context of our own culture. If the rulng oligarchs and their Kool-Aid swilling supporters in the public allow Mohammedans and others to overwhelm the West through slow invasion, liberalism will die - since the new cultures will no. Since liberalism itself is structurally incapable of defeating the Islamists, so the West would have to repent of liberalism in order to defeat Islam. Either way, liberalism is doomed.

Posted by: Carl on February 23, 2004 2:37 AM

The final paragraph of my previous post should have read:

I’m afraid the only thing we can do is document what has happened and fight on to survive as dissidents here in the hope that a day of great repentance will dawn. It appears that the West is indeed on the precipice of a new dark age. Let us remember and emulate those of that earlier age so long ago in the preservation of our faith, nations, and culture. As has been mentioned on this forum before, liberalism cannot live on its own. It is a parasite that lives only in the context of our own culture. If the rulng oligarchs and their Kool-Aid swilling supporters in the public allow Mohammedans and others to overwhelm the West through slow invasion, liberalism will die - as the replacement cultures will not provide a fertile soil for the parasite. Since liberalism itself is structurally incapable of defeating the Islamists or even acknowledging them as a mortal enemy, Western peoples would have to repent of liberalism in order to defeat the invaders. Either way, liberalism is doomed. The oligarchs and their minions like Hannity and Limbaugh think they can remain on top irrespective of how huge of an underclass they import from alien cultures, of course.

Posted by: Carl on February 23, 2004 2:54 AM

We may need to consider how we should live in an increasingly post-Western America. Assuming the cultural and demographic changes to America (and to the West in general) will not change anytime soon, how then do we live?

Posted by: Bob Vandervoort on February 23, 2004 1:00 PM

We may need to consider how we should live in an increasingly post-Western America. Assuming the cultural and demographic changes to America (and to the West in general) will not change anytime soon, how then do we live?

Posted by: Bob Vandervoort on February 23, 2004 1:01 PM

Carl, the bad news is, as I’ve said before on this site, that white America will do nothing about the Third World invasion of their country until the savages come up their driveways, break down their doors, murder their children, rape their wives, and loot their homes. This has already started to happen in many mexican-laden cities and states. Think “home invasions”.

In Dallas, which is a county away from where I live, mexican crime has displaced black crime almost entirely. Virtually all the shootings, gang wars, car hijackings, and “home invasions” (not to mention drunk driving fatalities) involve somebody with a Latin name. The good news is that nearly all the victims have Latin names, too. For the moment, the low to medium scale urban warfare that exists in “immigrant neighborhoods” is limited to mexican enclaves. But, like locusts, they are spreading out into suburbia, where they will soon import their automatic weapons, drug running, and gangland intimidation. Perhaps, then, when Mr. and Mrs. Soccer Mom find out that Jose and Lupe have in store for them something a little more than mowing the grass and cleaning the carpet, perhaps, then, they’ll awaken and “do what is necessary.”

Posted by: Paul C. on February 23, 2004 1:38 PM

These grand cultural changes are largely out of our individual control. If we want Christianity and Judaism to survive, for starters we must practice them and set a good example. Beyond that, we can pray and continue to carry on the political struggle against the loss of the West. Life is a struggle, and we might indeed be headed for a time of great tribulation. But I pray, “Lord nothing will happen today that you and I together cannot handle.” This paragraph is always the advice I have heard, and it seems sound to me.

Posted by: P Murgos on February 23, 2004 1:49 PM

By all means, Mr. Murgos, continue to pray. But also go out and organize, discuss, debate, disrupt, inform, and *prepare* for the tribulation of which you speak. Above all be prepared should it come to pass. Individual will often can and does make a difference. If you doubt it, just ask yourself what would happen if just one articulate, well funded spokesman for our cause emerged in the Congress?

Posted by: Paul C. on February 23, 2004 2:19 PM

I would add one observation to Paul’s statement about the third world hordes that are invading suburban America. The process of paganization and babarization, if you will, is not limited to the importation of under civilized peasants from the Yucatan peninsula. It is also occurring among young white, middle class Americans who have been indoctrinated by a black ghetto pop culture combined with leftist liberal sexual immorality and a respect for nothing higher than their own self-interest. Mexican street gangs are at least identifiable and can be excluded from our gated communities. The new more threatening barbarians are the teenagers who comprise generation Z and who will be running this country in a generation.

Posted by: Manny Alvarez on February 23, 2004 2:24 PM

Writes Manny Alvarez, “It is also occurring among young white, middle class Americans who have been indoctrinated by a black ghetto pop culture combined with leftist liberal sexual immorality and a respect for nothing higher than their own self-interest.”
******

Of course. And my comments regarding this development were posted in the thread Mr. Auster initiated on “The Triumph of Blackness” ( http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002204.html ). There are no two bigger problems facing our nation, IMO, than negrofication (the “wigger” phenomenon, which is now largely mainstream) and the Aztec invasion. Of the two, however, the wave of Third World immigration from South America far outweighs the former. At least with American Blacks, their native numbers would put them in a stable to declining percentage of the population that could be dealt with. Too, with a small percentage of American Blacks, it is possible to incorporate them into Western cultural norms. The numbers of Latins, however, pouring into this country are advancing geometrically. An illiterate, semi savage, non-English speaking *plurality* of the population of the US is a real possibility in less than 50 years. I’d add, moreover, that negrofication, or Africanization, would never have been able to take root had it not been for the destabilization of the general culture through the massive importation of (mainly) Latins who have caused white Europeans to decrease from 90 percent of population to less than 75 percent.

Posted by: Paul C. on February 23, 2004 2:48 PM

One question that has to be resolved if we’re thinking of spiritual “secession” from the current society is, how do we respond to actual social issues?

Let’s say we took this position: “This present social order is rushing toward its doom, we cannot stop it, and therefore we will stand off to the side, chronicling the disaster while preparing for a new social order that may replace this current one after it’s destroyed itself.”

If that was our stand, then do we still respond to the threats and insanities of the moment, or just watch them happen? Immigration, for example, or the election. Do we try to sway public opinion, write to Congressmen write articles or give speeches about current events and so on? If we were truly withdrawn from the current society and waiting its destruction, then it seems to me we wouldn’t do any of those things.

It’s like the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Once they had gone on strike from the society, they didn’t contribute their intellects or anything of value to the society. They weren’t concerned about its downward course, because their very aim in going on strike was to help hasten that downward course, or at least to do nothing to retard it.

While I have occasionally entertained the notion of secession over the years, I find myself, both in personal and practical terms, unable to take such a position, at least consistently. So I continue to wonder what a viable “secession” strategy would really consist of.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on February 23, 2004 2:56 PM

Mr. Auster, I am, by nature, incapable of cultural secession, spiritual or otherwise. When I left academe, for example, I discovered MORE freedom to say what I really thought. And, since, I’ve worked ceaselessly in the public and semi public sector to advance in real political and substantial terms against the multicultural and immigrationist cabal. Others, on this website, could easily do likewise. They might, even, follow YOUR example, Mr. Auster, in setting up public fora, around which like-minded individuals can coalesce. (Yes, “View from the Right” might just have much more *practical* effect/affect than even it’s host realizes!)

But let’s take a more specific example. This site has numerous Roman Catholic contributors and sympathizers, apparently. There is, in this nation, no more powerful NGO in favor of flooding the US with Third World immigrants than the Roman church. Why shouldn’t contributors on this board work to reverse and sabotage that position? Surely, they can find allies within their congregations, if they only speak up. So, why not organize, move to depose immigrationist clerics, withhold funds and tithes until their church listens to them?

Posted by: Paul C. on February 23, 2004 3:15 PM

Any sensible person contemplating the situation must be disheartened. But it is well to remember, that, for reasons some above have mentioned, those bent on our destruction really have no future either. Talk of “seceding” from our society is just foolish. Our enemies have no intention of letting us alone, no matter how withdrawn or passive anybody they know disagrees with them may be.

Posted by: Alan Levine on February 23, 2004 3:35 PM

“So, why not organize, move to depose immigrationist clerics, withhold funds and tithes until their church listens to them?” Because conservatives are in the habit of sitting back and complaining. Success is anathema. Among the most powerful of human emotions are self-pity and a sense of victimhood. “The news media are all against us. It isn’t fair! Hollywood is against us. It isn’t fair!” Apply to similar influences (the church hierarchy, the popular culture, etc.) and repeat ad nauseam.

Posted by: Clark Coleman on February 23, 2004 3:37 PM

It is instructive to revisit the public discussion of “cultural separatism” that was initiated by a speech that Paul Weyrich gave to a meeting of conservatives in December of 1998, which he turned into an open letter to conservatives in February of 1999 (see http://www.nationalcenter.org/Weyrich299.html for a copy of the original letter.) Much consternation followed over the misinterpretation that Weyrich was advocating giving up on politics entirely; see especially http://www.claremont.org/writings/990316arnn_feulner.html for the initial response. Charles Kesler responded that the error in Weyrich’s perspective was that he assumed that the American people constituted a “Moral Majority” (Weyrich coined the phrase for Jerry Falwell) who only needed to be politically mobilized in order to triumph over an elite minority who had somehow managed to impose their will on the majority. When the majority turned out not to be too moral, Kesler says that Weyrich gave up on the people. He argues here: http://www.claremont.org/writings/990401kesler.html that the proper response is to politically educate and convince the people, rather than assume they are already on our side and just need to be mobilized.

Weyrich replied to those conservatives who had publicly disagreed with his first letter in a column in World magazine in May of 1999 (see http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/05-15-99/national_2.asp for the archive). He made it clear that we should keep working vigorously in politics, but that (1) that work is mostly defensive, and (2) the primary work in his eyes was to be the building up of conservative cultural institutions. He gave a lengthier reply as a second open letter to conservatives, which I think I might find at home in printed form, but the Free Congress Foundation web pages are so badly managed (a shambles, really) that I cannot find it anywhere online.

In any case, the above links should be food for thought, and better than starting the discussion at square one.

Posted by: Clark Coleman on February 23, 2004 4:07 PM

Thanks to Mr. Coleman for posting links to the Weyrich remarks. I substantially agree with Mr. Weyrich’s position taken in the May 1999 World Magazine article. We need to form a culture within the culture in order to bring people to repentance. Traditional conservatives need to concentrate on forming their own institutions: media, schools, trade unions, etc. As far as political activities, we need to concentrate upon those which will make our survival more feasible. One example would be opposing the Bush plan for school vouchers, which the left will use as a Trojan horse to infiltrate parochial and private schools through government mandated rules. Ditto for government help for “faith based charities.”

Posted by: Carl on February 23, 2004 4:56 PM

I confess I have sometimes wondered whether even what has been described as an “apocalyptic event” would change things much. However, we probably won’t have to ponder this problem too much longer. Such a thing is in the cards, the way things are going.
Further thoughts: I am not convinced that Westerners in general, or Americans in particular, are as corrupted as some of those here fear. Rather, they are confused, distracted, and propagandized to the point that things the majority at least senses are wrong can get past them. Perhaps not much more complimentary than their being corrupt, but it is different.
To try to “war game” our problems into the future: I would not expect the destruction of the West. Things will probably stop short of that. In Europe, it is likely that the hatred and violence of the North Africans, in particular, toward the native born is already so extreme that in the forseeable future it will provoke a reaction. They are so crazy that they cannot wait simply for existing trends to let them win. The result will be, not a Muslim submergence of Europe, but a series of very bloody ethnic struggles, like the former Yugoslavia but worse. Eastern European intervention will probably tip the scales in favor of the native Europeans in Germany and Western Europe in the last resort. As for the United States: I am no admirer of Latin American immigration, but contrary to what some here seem to insist, Latin Americans are part of the West. (Albeit not one other Westerners used to brag about.) Unrestricted immigration will probably lead to Latin American submergence of the United States but that will “merely” mean that our country, as it has historically existed, will disappear and become part of Latin America.
To me, that is quite bad enough!
If things get worse than the above forecast, however, I would predict that in the long run the West would come under East Asian rather than Muslim dominance. The latter just seem too dumb and ideologically rigid to either conquer the West, hold on to it, or compete with the more rational peoples of Asia.

Posted by: Alan Levine on February 23, 2004 5:34 PM

“I am no admirer of Latin American immigration, but contrary to what some here seem to insist, Latin Americans are part of the West.” I am only a limited admirer of “the West”, but am a fervent admirer of Anglo-American civilization. Present-day Greece and Italy, whose government, political parties, corruption, etc., are all a joke or a scandal, depending on your point of view, are also a part of “the West”. I don’t want the USA to be like that, or to be like corrupt, noxious Mexico.

Posted by: Clark Coleman on February 23, 2004 5:48 PM

Two points:

1. Thinkers who classify civilizations have never seen Latin America as part of the West per se, but as a distinct civilizational area. Of course, that doesn’t mean that there are not areas of similarity and overlap.

2. Our own membership is not just to the West as such but to the distinct Anglo-American part of the West.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on February 23, 2004 6:08 PM

Paul C. wrote at 1:38 p.m.:

“Perhaps, then, when Mr. and Mrs. Soccer Mom find out that Jose and Lupe have in store for them something a little more than mowing the grass and cleaning the carpet, perhaps, then, they’ll awaken and ‘do what is necessary.’”

Placing this comment in the context of traditionalists’ role in separarting from the current, hopeless society while preparing for the future:

When that moment comes and Mr. and Mrs. Soccer Mom wake up, if there is ALREADY IN PLACE a coherent teaching on why their reaction to what is happening to them is not just a primitive instinct but a moral and intelligent response to disorder, then they will be able to act in a more effective way in harmony with the good, they won’t be just blindly “striking out,” in the manner of a desperate unprincipled exception to their liberalism. And this can be our role, to prepare the ground for that time, by standing as radical dissidents to the current disorder, saying why the current order is wrong and suicidal, and what practical are needed in order for it to recover. As the society gets worse and worse, people will be drawn to these traditionalist principles and traditionalists could begin to exert leadership.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on February 23, 2004 7:00 PM

My summary of agreement with Paul Weyrich is: Don’t disengage from politics. Write your congressmen. Vote your conscience. Write and tell why you are NOT going to vote for an incumbent well in advance of the election so he might be influenced. Write to suggest legislation. Write to commend the good guys so they will be encouraged. Educate and persuade others.

But, don’t put your hopes primarily in politics. Primarily, work to build good institutions (e.g. private Christian schools and colleges and curriculum publishers; the Center for Immigration Studies and English First and similar single-issue groups on your most important issues). Work to preserve and transmit our heritage, in art and music and literature and architecture and in the concepts of freedom and Judeo-Christian moral order, both within schools and within your family. Work to build up your church. Realize that the political tide will probably only turn after you and like minded citizens have made progress in these areas.

The problem seems to be that as soon as you say, “Focus on A”, everyone hears, “Forget about B”. That was a problem that Weyrich continually faced in communicating his message. “Do A and B, just put more hope in A than in B” seems to be hard for most people to grasp, for some reason.

Posted by: Clark Coleman on February 23, 2004 8:08 PM

I wonder what the attitude and reaction of the white majority in Newport, Nebraska has been since several of the local hombres carried out a Mexican-style bank robbery in Sept., 2002 - in which 5 folks (4 whites and 1 asian) were slaughtered for the crime of being in the wrong place or being the wrong color. Like the Wichita Massacre and numerous other incidents in what amounts to a dirty war being waged against whites, the media have gone to great lengths to see that it only got minimal attention and will soon disappear diwn the memory hole. The one thing we can absolutely count on is the Mexican consulates and various well-funded ‘advocacy’ groups to make certain the three perpetrators avoid capital punishment, or any punishment whatsoever. (The Mexican government considers life in prison to be cruel and inhumane.)

PaulC, I’m not even sure that Mr. & Mrs. Soccer Mom will so much as raise their voices in protest when Jorge and Vincente burst in and proceed to rape, murder and pillage. They’d have to stop drinking Kool-Aid first, I expect.

Posted by: Carl on February 23, 2004 8:20 PM

“‘Do A and B, just put more hope in A than in B’ seems to be hard for most people to grasp, for some reason.”

Amazing, isn’t it? I wonder if people were always like that, say the earlier generations of Americans, or the people of ancient Rome. People have the ability to function in the most sophisticated environments, carryng out jobs of all kinds of complexity, but when it comes to dealing with the slightest _conceptual_ complexity, i.e., dealing with a statement more complicated than “Do only A or do only B,” they can’t grasp it.

This universal intellectual limitation of otherwise intelligent people is a true mystery.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on February 23, 2004 8:34 PM

While I do not wish to gainsay any of the intelligent comments posted here, I wonder whether conservatives have truly reckoned with two realities which bode ill for efforts to develop parallel institutions and articulate defenses of tradition. The first of these realities concerns the aggressive nature of our adversaries, including recent developments in political and legal theory. The second concerns the character of the American people, as well as the profound divisions which exist in our society.

With regard to the first reality, we are nearing a point in time at which it will no longer be sufficient for traditionalists to shelter opinions which run afoul of elite and/or popular opinion in institutions such as colleges, schools and churches. Anyone who is familiar with news from Canada and the Europe will be aware that there are movements, social and legal, within these countries, to criminalize the expression of certain opinions held by traditionalists. Here in the US, there is a burgeoning field of legal and political studies devoted to the proposition that the freedoms of religion, assembly and speech are not fundamental, and may, even must, be restricted where those traditionalist views are concerned for the stability of liberal society and its myth of the autonomous individual.

The implications are manifest: the entire question of parallel institutions will be rendered moot by such developments. They do not intend to permit us refuges from the derangements of their culture. Liberalism may well be entering upon its endgame phase where we are concerned.

The second reality is the fact of the profound divisions which exist within the American body politic, and even individual Americans, on many of these controverted cultural questions. Consider the issue of immigration. Majorites of Americans want illegal immigration halted, the illegals deported, and legal immigration reduced. However, the people will never stand for the required measures; they would cave in the face of the maudlin sob stories. The same obtains with regard to sodomite marriage, I submit.

Not only are many, perhaps most, people divided against themselves, there are simply too many people on the side of the devils in these disputes for any precipitating event to bring about a cultural awakening of the requisite magnitude. Moreover, if conservatives were ever to attempt to force the issues, we would be faced with the prospect of truly massive civil disobedience, even a type of low-level civil conflict.

In sum, I do not believe that we have undersold the case for tradition, as any objective student could comprehend that reason and religion, ordered rightly, are on our side. If I am queried as to why I believe the American people to be so irrational, my only answer can be that they love unreason. They love unreason because admitting the truth would obligate them to discharge their responsibilities as citizens, which are onerous to those who care only about wealth and the diversions it purchases. Admission of the truth would also necessitate repentance of private vices and depravities which are implicated in our social conflicts. Finally, Americans would be under rational compulsion to admit that Rodney King was wrong, that we cannot just get along, for the truth divides, as it always has.

Posted by: Jeff M on February 23, 2004 10:13 PM

Jeff M., thankfully and honestly has presented the pessimistic view in accordance with the intellectual method. Mr. Auster has stated the fundamentals of what he proposes:

“Placing this comment in the context of traditionalists’ role in separating from the current, hopeless society while preparing for the future:

When that moment comes and Mr. and Mrs. Soccer Mom wake up, if there is ALREADY IN PLACE a coherent teaching on why their reaction to what is happening to them is not just a primitive instinct but a moral and intelligent response to disorder, then they will be able to act in a more effective way in harmony with the good, they won’t be just blindly “striking out,” in the manner of a desperate unprincipled exception to their liberalism. And this can be our role, to prepare the ground for that time, by standing as radical dissidents to the current disorder, saying why the current order is wrong and suicidal, and what practical are needed in order for it to recover. As the society gets worse and worse, people will be drawn to these traditionalist principles and traditionalists could begin to exert leadership.”

If I may dare to expand: truth is not merely a series of rational syllogisms, though there is a useful truth in logic. One could spend an eternity defining one plus one is two. For example, according to a prominent philosopher that appeared regularly on William F. Buckley, Jr.’s, defunct Firing Line, another prominent 20th Century philosopher was intellectually shattered by his twenty-year, impossible task. (The poor soul’s name escapes me, but some of the readers here will know the name.) Logic is a tool like mathematics, and it will not result in a mathematical equation that provides THE answer. Logic alone will not lead us to our Father or to Jesus. Faith is essential. I pray for faith rather than try to construct it with such things as the interesting Big Bang.

Posted by: Paul Murgos on February 23, 2004 11:09 PM

The failure of coordinated resistance against the tectonic shifts in the cultural and economic landscape, that are clearly detrimental to the middle class, are not merely the result of a lack of available information, or conservatism’s failure to effectively “market itself” to the masses. I agree wholeheartedly with Jeff’s statement that “they love unreason, because admitting the truth would require that they not only discharge their responsibilities as citizens —- which are onerous enough to those who care only about wealth and the diversions it purchases —- but actually repent (there’s a religious concept) on their own private vices and depravities which are implicated in the political and social issues of which all complain.” But how did they get that way in less than half a century? Television and a host of other lobotomizing technologies obviously had a deep impact, but there has to be more than bad television to account for women’s acceptance of abortion. I think we have to take a sober look at the enormity of the powers that have been covertly undermining traditional Christianity in the West. For example,consider Roe v. Wade. In 1973, the majority of Americans (approximately 70%) opposed the decriminalization of abortion when an imperious high court imposed it on the country. Despite the fact that there are 60 million Catholics in the U.S. and the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, despite the mountains of money that have flowed through the Republican party, the wealth of the Catholic Church, the wealth and influence of powerful sectarian churches, almost nothing has been accomplished after 30 years in the war to end abortion. In fact, Bush Jr. and the GOP have no intention of undoing the abortion racket. A telling example of their duplicity is the case presently pending before a federal court in Louisiana. On March 2, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Norma McCorvey’s (the original “Jane Roe”) law suit to reverse Roe. Yet the Bush/Ashcroft Department of Justice, rather than supporting Ms. McCorvey’s position, have instead refused to file any pleadings (except for a motion to dismiss) and will not participate in oral arguments. Would an administration that was serious about ending the abortion industry pass up an opportunity to re-litigate the issue with the original plaintiff, who is now on its side? Moreover, we now know that the Roe decision was not merely the result of the “brave” efforts of feminist reformers, but that the Rockefellers financially supported the lawsuit. Mary Meehan reported in Human Life Review (1998), that a cabal of powerful interests had formed behind the scenes to promote abortion on demand.

“While funding battles went on behind the scenes, abortion supporters were waging a vigorous fight to legalize abortion nationwide. A population commission, appointed by President Nixon and congressional leaders, did its best to advance that cause by calling for abortion ‘on request.’

Nixon selected John D. Rockefeller 3rd to chair the 24-member commission. An ardent advocate of population control and a Depression-era donor to the American Eugenics Society, Rockefeller was using family money and prestige to depress birth rates through his Population Council. He and other Rockefellers also were helping to fund the Association for the Study of Abortion, which promoted the legalization of abortion. And they were helping to finance the federal court case, Roe v. Wade, which would soon strike down state laws against abortion.

JDR 3rd had lobbied for establishment of the population commission and had conferred with Moynihan on its membership and assignments. Moynihan described a conversation in which Rockefeller ‘assured me that, while until recently most persons concerned with population growth had directed their attention to the problem of ‘unwanted children,’ there is now wide agreement that in the United States, at all events, it is the wanted children who are going to cause the problem.’”http://www.meehanreports.com/

A similar dynamic has been driving the homosexual agenda. It is ludicrous to suppose that homosexuals, who comprise less than 3% of the population, have the financial and political clout to have pulled off such a coup. Recall that in 1997 Ellen Degeneres was forced out of television because she admitted to being a lesbian. When we contrast Degeneres’s exile seven years ago with the reverence with which homosexuals are now held in the public eye, the sodomites’s accomplishments are truly amazing. Can anyone explain the success of the homosexual movement in redefining depravity and the failure of the Christian majority to save 40 million unborn children without inferring conspiratorial wickedness in high places?

Posted by: Manny Alvarez on February 24, 2004 2:43 AM

I ask people to keep down the length of their posts. This is a discussion board, not a place to publish full-length articles on the history of modern leftism. The eye glazes over.

“I thus fail to see that anything short of a revolution or apocalyptic event will bring about a general turnaround”

…echoes precisely what I believe! Someone somewhere is going to “snap” and it’s going to spread and the unthinkable will happen—civil unrest among the white majority.

I say “the unthinkable” because I don’t think many of us (and other Americans) believe it will happen. It won’t be necessarily “thinking men” who get it started, but rather those guided less by reason than by total loss of faith in their country and more particularly, their “leaders”.You can reason all you want, but everyone has a breaking point. As people seem to be getting to that position (I have friends I hear from that seem to be saying it’s coming, hating both major parties and seeing no representattion), I tend to agree with Jeff M in his pessimism. Getting involved with liberal institutions like our churches and schools (which are in control by the left, molesters and their liberal donors) IS a waste of time! People are leaving California in droves, and it’s not just the lack of high paying jobs and the cost of living. People don’t want to bring their children up in this area where homosexuality is the norm and the rest of us are treated as “the weirdos”. I thought at one time that California was going to split in two, be two separate states, but now maybe only San Francisco will “seceed”—by becoming “a rougue city”, only it will be the left seceeding! The left will call SF “an anti-military zone”—no military ships will be allowed to dock here—they will pass out “medical marijuana” for those who want it and continue to issue illegal marriage licenses—which is anarchy. That will bring on the National Guard, and perhaps THEN—with the law-breaking mayor in jail and the City under martial law, maybe THEN we can take back that city—and begin taking our country back! When the left gets out to march in protest, they’ll be met with those of us “reasoning people” on the side of the law.

That WILL be scary and perhaps even bloody, but we will win.

Posted by: dj on February 24, 2004 6:16 AM

I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Auster and Mr. Coleman’s comments on my classifying Latin America as an (undesirable) part of Western civilization. I fervently agree that it is an inferior part —- and its overcoming the vastly superior Anglo-American culture would be a catastrophe.